Application of in combination with sulfasalazine in ulcerative colitis patients demonstrates significant effectiveness.

Background: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a complex inflammatory bowel disease, and its etiology and pathogenesis remain incompletely elucidated.

Aim: To analyze the effects of in combination with sulfasalazine on intestinal microbiota and intestinal barrier function in patients with UC.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of clinical data from 127 UC patients admitted to our hospital between January 2021 and January 2023 was conducted. All patients met complete inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on the treatment interventions received, they were divided into a control group ( = 63) and an observation group ( = 64). Both groups of patients received routine treatment upon admission. The control group received sulfasalazine in addition to routine interventions, while the observation group received a combination of on the basis of the control group's treatment. The clinical efficacy, improvement in symptoms, modified Baron endoscopic scores, quality of life "inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (IBDQ)", levels of intestinal microbial indicators (such as , , , and ), intestinal mucosal barrier function indicators [diamine oxidase (DAO), lipopolysaccharide (LPS), D-lactic acid (D-LA)], and adverse reaction occurrences were compared between the two groups.

Results: (1) Clinical efficacy: The total effective rate in the control group was 79.37%, while in the observation group, it was 93.75%, significantly higher than that of the control group ( < 0.05); (2) Improvement in symptoms: The observation group showed significantly lower relief time for abdominal pain, diarrhea, rectal bleeding, fever symptoms, and mucosal healing time compared to the control group ( < 0.05); (3) Baron endoscopic scores and IBDQ scores: Before treatment, there was no significant difference in Baron endoscopic scores and IBDQ scores between the two groups ( > 0.05). However, after treatment, the observation group showed significantly lower Baron endoscopic scores and higher IBDQ scores compared to the control group ( < 0.05); (4) Levels of intestinal microbial indicators: Before treatment, there was no significant difference in the levels of , , , and between the two groups ( > 0.05). After treatment, the levels of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group, while the levels of and were significantly lower than those in the control group ( < 0.05); (5) Levels of intestinal mucosal barrier function indicators: Before treatment, there was no significant difference in the levels of DAO, LPS, and D-LA between the two groups ( > 0.05). However, after treatment, the levels of DAO, LPS, and D-LA in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group ( < 0.05); and (6) Occurrence of adverse reactions: The incidence of adverse reactions in the control group was 9.52%, while in the observation group, it was 10.94%. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of adverse reactions between the two groups ( > 0.05).

Conclusion: The application of in combination with sulfasalazine in UC patients demonstrates significant effectiveness. Compared to sole sulfasalazine intervention, the combined application of further promotes the relief of relevant symptoms in patients, alleviates intestinal mucosal inflammation, and improves the quality of life. Its action may be related to rectifying the imbalance in intestinal microbiota and improving intestinal mucosal barrier function. Moreover, the combined use of does not increase the risk of adverse reactions in patients, indicating a higher level of medication safety and advocating for its clinical promotion and application.